[JamesP81]

You seem confused.

Not confused at all. That's what happens when you sit down and study the matter at hand.

The British were the ones doing the indiscriminate bombing. Granted, bombing wasn't nearly so precise at that time as it is now; there were many civilian casulaties. The difference is that we were, in fact, targeting specific industrial targets. The British were just randomly bombing. And Sherman was randomly killing anyone that it was convenient to. What Sherman did was far more akin to our use of atomic bombs on Japan than it was to daylight bombing of Germany's industrial areas.

[x]

Yet our firebombing in Japan killed more civilians than the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Strategic targets may have been the reason given, but it went far beyond that.

Moreover, we were a part of Britain's bomber campaigns against Hamburg and Dresden that cost so much in civilian lives. Our daytime attacks may have been centered on railway stations or factories, but there was no way to limit the damage.

Wikipedia says:

USAAF leaders firmly held to the claim of "precision" bombing of military targets for much of the war, and energetically refuted claims that they were simply bombing cities. In reality, the day bombing was "precision bombing" only in the sense that most bombs fell somewhere near a specific designated target such as a railway yard, whereas the night bombing campaign targeted cities with area bombardment. Nevertheless, the sheer tonnage of explosive delivered by day and by night was eventually sufficient to cause widespread damage, and, more importantly from a military point of view, forced Germany to divert resources to counter it. This was to be the real significance of the Allied strategic bombing campaign — resource allocation.

And no, Sherman most assuredly wasn't "randomly killing anyone that it was convenient to." If you're looking for a parallel it certainly wasn't Dresden or Hiroshima.

[ichabod1]

The British were the ones doing the indiscriminate bombing.

Hmm... what might have happened to make the Brits think that might be a good idea, eh? Or at least justified?